The War on Terror

omnicorp

bonkey wrote:

Because such people exist in every nation?

There is nothing exceptional about the US, except that as a nation its decisions have perhaps more impact on the rest of the world than any other.

Ireland, for example, has no shortage of people who care about themselves and "their nation" first as well, and who are as equally "unaware" (or inconsiderate) of the world around them.

jc

Well I suppose there's proof of that in the
"Let's take care of our own" attidude used by some.
I think that we should look after everyone, especialy those worse off than us.
Someone not getting a good car whereas a "non-national" being give a free one [1] by the government isn't as big a problem as the siege in Russia.
I didn't here anyone donating money to the victims.
That IS a bit selfish to say the least.

[1] Someone complained about this to me.

omnicorp

Necromancer wrote:

What has he gotten away with? If you dont make your posts more precise I cant follow them, maybe this is me but you ask too broad questions

Broad questions leave room for plenty of answers.

MrNuked

The Americans killed more civilians when they invaded Afghanistan than Al Quaieda did when they bombed the WTC, without including the people who died because the bombing prevented relief agencies from treating (the food parcels did not compensate for that).

"The entire Muslim world is watching this with shock and horror. Among the young, animosities are being created and there are new calls for revenge. This is dangerous; this is the atmosphere which creates terrorism."
-NY Times Analyst.

I agree with the view that the "war on terrorism" is a political tool to manipulate and control American citizens, and to encourage them to become more insular.
I've been over there a few times. They are bombarded with information to such an extent that there is no space [lots of] them to form their own opinions, even their own personalities in some cases.
Did you know they have "pep rallies" in their schools, which involve lots of people gathering together and shouting "WOOO! YEAH! OUR SCHOOL ROCKS!!" and similar things for a fairly long period. I'm including this more because I think it is a funny aside, than to support a point.
Advertising has made them perceive women as products, which is just as bad for the men. It is a very mercenary culture I think.


edit: by information I mean intrusive advertising, propaganda and bull**** encouraging conformity to one thing or another. School text books are censored to some degree there, i think the Kennedy assassination is an example of this.

Stabshauptmann

Only politicians ask broad questions because they never want any answers

omnicorp

Necromancer wrote:

Only politicians ask broad questions because they never want any answers

Well, my dream is to become a TD for the SWP.
imagine that(!)

gandalf

omnicorp wrote:

I know, maybe flogen is a friend of bonkey.
hmm... power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ah well, how does Mr Bush get away with every thing?

Actually he isn't, bonkey mods his own way and I mod mine. At the time on that other thread I felt a ban was justified and bonkey in this case didn't. You better be careful next time you put a comment up on this board about favouritism again sonny !!! You are threading a very very narrow line here and if you cross over it I will ban you.

I do not care what age you are, what your point of view is or anything else start posting crap like that again and you are history here. I am fed up warning you and next time I will take decisive action.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

I know, maybe flogen is a friend of bonkey.
hmm... power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I will say this once more.

Go and re-read the charter. Responding in-thread is not acceptable.

Furthermore, if you have an issue with my moderation and believe I am being partial, then report it to the other mods, or bring it up on the Feedback forum with the Admins. Again, the threads in this forum are not the appropriate place to do it.

jc

the_syco

Just read a bit of the starter post. He says Muslim and Christanity are the same. I agree. Both want to limit our freedoms, give women no rights, and have no democracy.

As for Muslims being terrorists; so what? There are lots of Christains who are also terrorists (CIRA, Red Hand Defenders, etc), but go for different causes. The Koran, like the Bible, doesn't say violance is good. The leaders of the religon does that.

Finally, the reason why the "west" has done so well, is that there are a few different religons together. Jews, Catholics, etc work together, not caring what your religon is.
The Islamic people call as infidels, and Christains call them pagans.

The difference is that in the Muslims states the religon is still in power, but in the western states, they are not.

=====

Nick_oliveri, equality comes at a price. For everyone to be equal, we'd all have to earn the same amount, work the same amount, and get paid the same, even if some of us worked harder than others.

=====

Necromancer, the war on terror can never be won. Why? Beacuse as truely as we believe we're right, so too does the other side.
They (the enemy) want us to bow down to their religon, and vice versa, we want them to bow under democracy. So the fight will always go on.
The best we can hope for is some type of truce.
If Kerry comes into office, he'll pull all troops back to the US, and leave multiple power vacuums, and the outcome will be worse.
If Bush stays in office, the "war" will continue, to the point where a "truce" is called. Look @ Afganistan. The main fighting is stopped, and the local tribal leaders are in power. Its not great, but nor is it a "threat". I believe thats what the US is trying to do in the US.

=====

Billy Kovachy wrote:

It is obvious the war on terror is losing.It can be clearly shown in the last week with the recent Airplane crashes in Russia,the French Government being held for ransom (over scarfs next theyll be asking for the coversion of Bush to Islam) with the captured of french hostages.A strong international agreement and cooperation is needed which will not happen in the near future.

You should read into it a little. Two westerns get caught. Since they are from France, a country not related to the war in Iraq, they do the scarf thing. The 2 French people have since been released.
The 2 planes been blown up is part of a 150 year old feud/war between Russia and Chechyna.

=====
popinfresh, I'm not a pumped up Bush supporter, as he's a crap leader, but since the only alternative is Kerry, my hands are kind of tied. I believe in most of America's Foreign Policy, untill Bush made a balls of it.

=====

I still think its a pity that the American's never stuck to plan a. The shock and awe, followed by some type of policing. Instead they took the softly softly approach, killed only a few, left the power stations & military alone (they hoped to use them afterwards), and only concentrated on Baghdad. They should have blown up more stuff, killed most of the soldiers, and then swiftly handed goverment over to a group of pro-western people.

monument

Necromancer wrote:

I disagree, I dont believe that even Bush deserves the death penalty. Even if we accept for the purpose of debate that he is guilty of war crimes and partly responsible for the thousands of deaths since the begining of the war on terror, I wouldnt approve the death penalty.
I believe that nobody can definitivly judge another person since we dont and can never know all the circumstances of an action or thought. I also strongly disapprove of absulutes, which the death penalty is.

Agreed. In my books, a state killing someone for killing another is as bad, if not a greater crime then original killer's crime. Are we to rape the rapists? Bully the bullies?

Of course some would, and do, agree with some of the above solutions, but they all scream out that the actions are acceptable.

omnicorp

the_syco wrote:

Just read a bit of the starter post. He says Muslim and Christanity are the same. I agree. Both want to limit our freedoms, give women no rights, and have no democracy.

I meant that in basic Religous terms
(ie, without the rituals, ceremonies and rules)
They are very similar.

ie) We both acknoldge i God (Allah)
We both acknoledge that there are angels
W both acknoledge Christ as a very important person.
(except, Christians believe that he is the Son Of God,
wheras Muslims believe that he is a prophet)

Religion has become too tied down with rules and rituals.

omnicorp

monument wrote:

Agreed. In my books, a state killing someone for killing another is as bad, if not a greater crime then original killer's crime. Are we to rape the rapists? Bully the bullies?

Of course some would, and do, agree with some of the above solutions, but they all scream out that the actions are acceptable.

Indeed, but should we jail the jailors?

Stabshauptmann

omnicorp wrote:

I meant that in basic Religous terms
(ie, without the rituals, ceremonies and rules)
They are very similar.

ie) We both acknoldge i God (Allah)
We both acknoledge that there are angels
W both acknoledge Christ as a very important person.
(except, Christians believe that he is the Son Of God,
wheras Muslims believe that he is a prophet)

Religion has become too tied down with rules and rituals.

Theres alot of similarities between irish brown bread and french baggets, many of the same ingrediants, but totally different.

monument

omnicorp wrote:

Religion has become too tied down with rules and rituals.

More like too obsessed with organisation, organisations, bricks and mortar, been the moral guardians of all, and interfering with others – woops, that happen a long time ago - admittedly all generalisations.

omnicorp wrote:

Indeed, but should we jail the jailors?

Unless your been an smart arse, the above contradicts what I said, as well, in a way it contradicting it self.

In my view, jails, along with fines, for the most part, are not solutions.

omnicorp wrote:

ArcadeGame2004 seems to be one of the more intelligent and open-minded posters on this Forum.

Bush is as bad as Osama Bin Laden.

Hmm... this could work on both of the above comments...

If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground. - the Political Compass

popinfresh

It's rumoured that "President" Bush doesn't actualy read the papers handed to him.
In fact, he probably doesn't read at all.

So is it any surprise that he's stuck in his own bubble, unaware of reality?

That's an assumption, which is fair enough. But to be honest, for me, George W Bush seems like the type of personality that does whatever the hell he's advised (told) to do. Even though Bush is an uneducated hillbilly, the US goverment has a lot of intellegent people telling him what to do. Evil b$stards, but intellegent all the same. In theory, the invasion of Iraq will have enormous benefits economy wise for the US in the future. Unless of course other countries cop on to what they're at (only a matter of time) and get p1ssed off. WW3 anybody?

arcadegame2004

Originally Posted by omnicorp
ArcadeGame2004 seems to be one of the more intelligent and open-minded posters on this Forum

Thank you Omnicorp

omnicorp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Thank you Omnicorp

Well, you are.
All those with numerous green dots are either moderators (which is good)
or goody-two-shoes who are trying to be politicaly correct and not make anyone angry.
You and Bonkey are the only ones talking sense here.

And, in other news, when will Bush invade Chenchnya to stop terrorism there?
Or would that not be of benifit to the economy?

mycroft

omnicorp wrote:

Well, you are.
All those with numerous green dots are either moderators (which is good)
or goody-two-shoes who are trying to be politicaly correct and not make anyone angry.
You and Bonkey are the only ones talking sense here.

And, in other news, when will Bush invade Chenchnya to stop terrorism there?
Or would that not be of benifit to the economy?

You're just displaying your ignorance here omnicorp. Chechen Is part of the Russian Federation, so technically the US would have to declare war on Moscow to to invade chechen.

Well, my dream is to become a TD for the SWP.

Oh and Omnicorp how many copies of the socialist worker do you have to sell to get the SWP nomination?

arcadegame2004

You're just displaying your ignorance here omnicorp. Chechen Is part of the Russian Federation, so technically the US would have to declare war on Moscow to to invade chechen.

Do you not think that sometimes a sovereign-government engages in terrorism if they are committing genocide? Or is it only "terrorism" when an organisation banned by the sovereign-government is doing the killing?

If the sovereign-government stoops to the same methods as the terrorists then should it really be considered as being on higher moral-ground than the terrorists of the illegal organisations?

I's be interested in your views on that.

mycroft

If the sovereign-government stoops to the same methods as the terrorists then should it really be considered as being on higher moral-ground than the terrorists of the illegal organisations?

Arcadegame I wasn't correcting omnicorp's politics I was correcting his Geography.

Now onto your point. Correct me if I am wrong but Hitler did use the excuse of the oppression of German Czechs to justifiy the ansctulz.

I don't believe the current US administration has the remotest interest in really combating terrorism, it's major concern is capturing and holding resources, and it's imperalistic style goals.

Yes I would condone and support a genuine humanitarian effort to stablise the region, however simple put the ethics and reasoning behind such a effort would always be put in doubt.

There needs to be a strong international UN with an independent army. A strong international court with teeth. And until we see both this argument is moot, because intervention like you refer to will never happen.

omnicorp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Do you not think that sometimes a sovereign-government engages in terrorism if they are committing genocide? Or is it only "terrorism" when an organisation banned by the sovereign-government is doing the killing?

If the sovereign-government stoops to the same methods as the terrorists then should it really be considered as being on higher moral-ground than the terrorists of the illegal organisations?

I's be interested in your views on that.

No, just like Nike shouldn't be considered any more than slave-traders.
You know, child labor and stuff

LegacyUser

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Do you not think that sometimes a sovereign-government engages in terrorism if they are committing genocide? Or is it only "terrorism" when an organisation banned by the sovereign-government is doing the killing?

If the sovereign-government stoops to the same methods as the terrorists then should it really be considered as being on higher moral-ground than the terrorists of the illegal organisations?

I's be interested in your views on that.

Spot on, it is only 'terrorism' when an organisation banned by by the sovereign-government is doing the killing, unless of course there is a third party willing to step in, but there very rarely is, hence you have al q, killed a coupla thousands being the horrid terrorists and USA, killed 10's of thousands being the saviours of freedom, same with Russian's & chechans and any numerous other conflicts you wish to mention where the sovereign state takes the high ground

all military action is terrorism, but some is justified, best to judge groups by their actions and not by any label tom dick or harry atatches to them for their own political reasons

LegacyUser

US Military fatalities in Iraq poised to go 4 figures, currently stands at 999, I wonder what unlucky sod will get the honours of being 1000

omnicorp

bananayoghurt wrote:

US Military fatalities in Iraq poised to go 4 figures, currently stands at 999, I wonder what unlucky sod will get the honours of being 1000

"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

That describes Bush fairly well I think

arcadegame2004

Billy is still wrong to insist that terrorism is solely a problem of security.

In the vast majority of cases , it arises due to oppression. The IRA of 1919-22 that drove out the British was considered a "terrorist" organisation by the British Government of the day and they used that precise language, as well as the "murder-gang" term.

I heard on RTE Radio 1's Fivesevenlive program today that a Russian former member of the FSB (the new name for the KGB) General Alexander Litvinenko has claimed that the FSB was behind the terrorist bombings in Moscow in 1999 that Putin used as an excuse to invade Chechnya. He also claims that the man paraded on Russian TV as one of the Beslan hostage-takers was actually a prisoner when Beslan happened and was paraded for propaganda purposes. This is interesting since the supposed hostage-taker says on television that Maskhadov, the elected President of independent Chechnya, was involved in the Beslan attack. This was suit Putin, who wants to discredit Maskhadov by implicating him in the terror attacks of the past few years - ALL of which he has denied involvement in. I think Putin is lying. This is colonial propaganda and I will not be fooled. It is much more likely that the renegade Chechen rebel Shamil Basayev was the real author of Beslan, since he admitted ordering the hostage taking in a hospital in Budenovsk in 1995 (the second year of the first Chechen War.

What I am about to say (or type rather :rolleyes: ) may seem hardline to some people, but I will say it anyway because it is my attitude.

Russia can stop further terror attacks easily. How? GET OUT OF CHECHNYA.

The second Chechen war was invented to make Putin electable and is now being used by him to centralise power and establish a dictatorship. I believe Putin was involved in the apartment block bombings in Moscow in 1999 as a pretext to invade Chechnya. Since then he has used terrorist acts as an opportunity to clamp down on freedom of the media and media ownership (all the TV channels have been taken over by the State since Putin came to power) and the press (the editor of Izvestiya being sacked for criticising Putin; Anna Politkovskaya poisoned by the FSB for planning to ask Aslan Maskhadov to negotiate the release of the hostages in Beslan;Andrei Babitsky beaten up by Russian troops and then arrested for "being in a brawl" on his way to Beslan (he was jailed before for his critical reporting of the Chechen war).

The new laws by Putin smack of the Reichstag fire and the subsequent Enabling Law passed to give Hitler absolute power in Germany. He plans to abolish elected governors so that in future he will appoint them. He plans to ban independents from running for the Duma (parliament) elections and replace it with a list system. These are aimed at centralising power even more into his hands. He even has a youth movement similar to the Hitler Youth called Putin Youth! Like the Hitler Youth, Putin Youth burns books that Putin doesn't like!

If Putin continues oppressing the Chechen people, he will create more Black Widows to blow themselves up in schools or airplanes. Russia is bringing this on itself. These people obviously hate Russia. And feel they have nothing to lose, having had their children, husbands, boyfriends, parent's, cousins murdered by Russian deathsquads. The HATE is the root cause of the terrorism. To stop terrorism you need to address the cause of the HATE. That means ending the Russian massacres in Chechnya and giving Chechnya back its freedom cruelly stolen in Russia's rape of that country.

Gazeta newspaper is reporting that a letter has been obtained from an FSB source claiming that the FSB was ordered to kill at least 5 civilians a week in Ingushetia. If this is true, then it is a striking resemblance to Stalin's quotas for so-called "traitors" (in reality innocent people) to be rounded up and killed. Russia is definitely returning to the bad old days. Putin wants the violence in Chechnya to continue so he can have more excuses to create that dictatorship.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

What I am about to say (or type rather :rolleyes: ) may seem hardline to some people, but I will say it anyway because it is my attitude.

Everything after this line belongs in one of the two threads on Chechnya already going. Nothing to do with what you're saying, it's where you're saying it. Stop hijacking threads, it's pissing me off. That's not a request, it's an official instruction.

keu

Kofi Anan (general sec. U.N) states that the war in Iraq WAS illegal.

will be interesting to see how this pans out.

In the vast majority of cases , it arises due to oppression. The IRA of 1919-22 that drove out the British was considered a "terrorist" organisation by the British Government of the day and they used that precise language, as well as the "murder-gang" term.

You seem to be missing the point. In 1919-22 targets were chosen from those who actively supported the British Empire in Ireland. I.e. Informers, and british Agents. That was the point of the "terror". The IRB/IRA attacked military targets that hadn't been targeted that much before. Their aim was to make all informers so terrified that they wouldn't be tempted to be employed by the British government for grassing on Irishmen. There is a difference between Guellia warfare, freedom fighting, and Terrorism.

Aye, they used the words Terror groups and Murder Gangs. they were the recipents, but show me incidents where Irishmen marched into civilian areas and randomly killed civilians, and I'll retract my statement.

Modern day terrorism, consists of the active targeting of Civilian and Military targets. There is no distinction made. And that is why there is a difference being made in regards to freedom fighters/guerrilla groups, and those terrorists who intentionally target non-combatants. i.e. Chechen rebels targeting russian civilians.

arcadegame2004

Modern day terrorism, consists of the active targeting of Civilian and Military targets. There is no distinction made. And that is why there is a difference being made in regards to freedom fighters/guerrilla groups, and those terrorists who intentionally target non-combatants. i.e. Chechen rebels targeting russian civilians.

Would you consider the Russian soldiers involved in mass-executions of Chechen civilians, the rape of Chechen men and women, and mutilations, to be terrorists too? I do.

omnicorp

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Would you consider the Russian soldiers involved in mass-executions of Chechen civilians, the rape of Chechen men and women, and mutilations, to be terrorists too? I do.

I just consider them mureders, terrorists have a reason, albeit not a very good one sometimes...

arcadegame2004

omnicorp wrote:

I just consider them mureders, terrorists have a reason, albeit not a very good one sometimes...

And do "murderers" who actively round up innocent civilians for state-sponsored executions have moral superiority over "terrorists" in you opinion? I don't think so.